often proces fmeas are re-used with only the S, O, and D changing and maybe adding an effect or two based on the specifics of the thing. there nothing wrong with reusing known failure modes and causes of well understood processes. I agree that without specifics there is no way for us to know if the body of the fmea is missing anything. and this fmea looks fairly comprehensive and well done (except for S, O and D)
as for the last statement - you are right these situations certainly exist. there are poor auditors (soft graders and strict trivial graders) and poor companies that approach certification as a paperwork excercise only or who just try to appease the strict, trivial auditor). as a customer I need to be able to trust the validity of a certification and that my supplier is doing the right thing. this situation makes that difficult without doign my own audits...
as for the last statement - you are right these situations certainly exist. there are poor auditors (soft graders and strict trivial graders) and poor companies that approach certification as a paperwork excercise only or who just try to appease the strict, trivial auditor). as a customer I need to be able to trust the validity of a certification and that my supplier is doing the right thing. this situation makes that difficult without doign my own audits...